L'enjeu des règles

Abstract

There are two analogies which justify the comparison between law and game. The notion of constitutive rule occurs in the formulation of both analogies. The paper L'enjeu des règles is devoted to the explication and the implications of the notion of eidetic- constitutive rule. The six main topics dealt with in the paper are : (i) history of the theory of constitutive rules ; (ii) definitions of the notion of eidetic-constitutive rule ; (iii) typology of deontic eidetic-contitutive rules (paradigmatic rules vs. syntagmatic rules) ; (iv) distinction between the notion of eidetic-constitutive rule and the related notion of anankastic-constitutive rule ; (v) discussion of the possibility of antinomies (conflicts) between eidetic-constitutive rules and between anankastic- constitutive rules ; (vi) analysis of the relevance of the theory of eidetic-constitutive rules for deontics, philosophy of law, philosophy of normative language.

The norm of assertion: a ‘constitutive’ rule?

“…Other precursors include Reinach (1987), Midgley (1949), Mabbott (1953), and Rawls (1955). For a more comprehensive historical overview, see Conte (1984Conte ( , 1986Conte ( or 1991.…”

Revisiting Constitutive Rules

“…Conte: ludus vs lusus Revisiting Wittgenstein, Conte [14] starts by observing that there is an ontological difference between the rules eidetic-constitutive of a game (ludus) from the rules perceived from the play (lusus). The former are necessary for the game to occur.…”